To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

STEV2NS0M LIBRE
(why not—the paper's free. This issue by mike rotkin)
THE HARD FACTS
One of the most common criticisms of "radical" writing is the overuse
of rhetoric. Terms like imperialism, ruling class, fascism, racism, etc. are
used in ways that either l) mean nothing to the non-radical reader or 2) indicate that the person using them doesn't know what they mean. If you don't already
believe that this country is imperialistic (or you don't know in economic terms
what that means), racist, moving (economically and politically) toward fascism,
and that most of the major decisions which affect your life are made by a relatively small ruling class then you are not likely to be convinced by reading
a few pages of anything. It might be possible ,Hhowever, to present you with
some facts (statistics) which will shatter some of the myths with which you
have clouded your political thinking.
INCOME (wages as opposed to wealth)
Have inequalities of income become less over the years?
"While the income share of the richest tenth has remained large and virtually
constant over the past half century (1910-33.956, 1959-28.9%), the two lowest
income tenths have experienced a sharp decline. In 1910, the combined income
shares of the two poorest income tenths were about one quarter that of the
richest tenth (C.3%/33.9%) °s by 1959, their share had dropped to one seventh
(h.Q$/2%.9%).« "...the poorer half of the U.S. population received 21% of
the national personal income in 1910, but only 2% in 1959."
Kolko p. 1?
In 1962, $2% of the families in the U.S. made less than $6000 annually. This
is less than $ll5/wk or an average income for this group of less than $90/wk.
Miller p. hi
Doesn't the graduated Income tax level this all out?
In 1955 after federal income taxes the top tenth income group received 21% of
the national personal income. The entire bottom half received only 2lt$. After
regressive state and local taxes the picture looks even worse.
Bureau of the Census, Statistical_Abstract ofjche
U.S. 1957
WEALTH (property as opposed to income)
Have inequalities in wealth decreased (so what if we are run by corporation?
don't the people control them?)?
In 1937, 6.6$ of the U.S. population owned stockj 61,000 individuals received
one half of the value of cash dividends. By 1956 the first figure had dropped
to 5.1$ and by 1959 it was all the way up to 7.9$
TNEC, The Distribution of ownership in the 200J^arj_est
A 1951 study of stock ownership in 2 ,,991 major corporations revealed that only
2.1$ of the common stock shareholdings owned 58$ of the common stock and that
1.1$ of the prefered stockholdings owned k6% of prefered stock. Given the nature
,)i- jfc..pVhnidPi. ™octiriEfl thene are both controlling shares.
Lewis Kimmal, Share Ownership in the U.S.
(Wash. ,,D.C., Brookings Institution~19^2T"

STEV2NS0M LIBRE
(why not—the paper's free. This issue by mike rotkin)
THE HARD FACTS
One of the most common criticisms of "radical" writing is the overuse
of rhetoric. Terms like imperialism, ruling class, fascism, racism, etc. are
used in ways that either l) mean nothing to the non-radical reader or 2) indicate that the person using them doesn't know what they mean. If you don't already
believe that this country is imperialistic (or you don't know in economic terms
what that means), racist, moving (economically and politically) toward fascism,
and that most of the major decisions which affect your life are made by a relatively small ruling class then you are not likely to be convinced by reading
a few pages of anything. It might be possible ,Hhowever, to present you with
some facts (statistics) which will shatter some of the myths with which you
have clouded your political thinking.
INCOME (wages as opposed to wealth)
Have inequalities of income become less over the years?
"While the income share of the richest tenth has remained large and virtually
constant over the past half century (1910-33.956, 1959-28.9%), the two lowest
income tenths have experienced a sharp decline. In 1910, the combined income
shares of the two poorest income tenths were about one quarter that of the
richest tenth (C.3%/33.9%) °s by 1959, their share had dropped to one seventh
(h.Q$/2%.9%).« "...the poorer half of the U.S. population received 21% of
the national personal income in 1910, but only 2% in 1959."
Kolko p. 1?
In 1962, $2% of the families in the U.S. made less than $6000 annually. This
is less than $ll5/wk or an average income for this group of less than $90/wk.
Miller p. hi
Doesn't the graduated Income tax level this all out?
In 1955 after federal income taxes the top tenth income group received 21% of
the national personal income. The entire bottom half received only 2lt$. After
regressive state and local taxes the picture looks even worse.
Bureau of the Census, Statistical_Abstract ofjche
U.S. 1957
WEALTH (property as opposed to income)
Have inequalities in wealth decreased (so what if we are run by corporation?
don't the people control them?)?
In 1937, 6.6$ of the U.S. population owned stockj 61,000 individuals received
one half of the value of cash dividends. By 1956 the first figure had dropped
to 5.1$ and by 1959 it was all the way up to 7.9$
TNEC, The Distribution of ownership in the 200J^arj_est
A 1951 study of stock ownership in 2 ,,991 major corporations revealed that only
2.1$ of the common stock shareholdings owned 58$ of the common stock and that
1.1$ of the prefered stockholdings owned k6% of prefered stock. Given the nature
,)i- jfc..pVhnidPi. ™octiriEfl thene are both controlling shares.
Lewis Kimmal, Share Ownership in the U.S.
(Wash. ,,D.C., Brookings Institution~19^2T"